| How do you combine the Law of Pleuris and the convening of the CMT (Crisis Management Team)? The Law of Pleuris says the following: Pleuris= (C)*(R)*(M)3 With C = culpability; R = relevance and M = mediagenicity. “Pleuris” is a Dutch expression for “much ado” or “fuss.” But what does this formula actually stand for? Behind this formula are questions. And if the answers to them indicate that the Pleuris can get high in a situation, it may be necessary to inform (at least) the CMT, or convene it. | In this post, I write my own opinion, not that of any organization. Research was done with the help of search engines and AI, among others |
Author: Manu Steens
The question I received was originally “How does the person of permanency know whether he/she should convene the CMT?“. To that end, that person can consult with colleagues to determine an answer. It is best to do such a consultation in a structured way, by performing a brief ad hoc risk analysis of the situation. The risk analysis should be qualitative, because there is often no time for reasoned determination of values. Looking up relevant information takes time. And estimating concepts of probability and impact based on a gut feeling can give serious biases without using the relevant information. The definition of risk = probability * impact is suitable for the uncertain risk of not achieving or exceeding the set objectives. Here, we have the certainty of a crisis, and therefore of “commotion,” and we want to estimate whether the commotion we feel could lead to a significant one that comes our way. The purpose of the analysis is therefore different. That’s why I suggest doing this “ad hoc risk analysis” using the “Law of Pleuris”. Its parameters lend themselves better to gut feeling.
The Law of Pleuris
The “Law of Pleuris” describes how the magnitude of a crisis or scandal is based on various factors.
Pleuris= (C)*(R)*(M)3
With :
C = the culpability
R = the relevance
M = the (social) mediagenicity.
Behind each of these 3 factors are several possible situations or events as an indicator of the “severity,” the “weight” of this factor.
The intention here is to further illustrate each of these three factors.
The formula was developed at the Master of Crisis and Disaster Management program and later further developed by Roy Johannink.
C = Culpability
Definition of Culpability.
In the context of crisis communication and public perception, culpability could be defined as:
The public perception of the blame of a person, organization or agency for the occurrence or exacerbation of a negative event, where this responsibility is considered legitimate by the public or the media and can be held accountable by them morally or, but not necessarily, legally.
Explanation:
Culpability, in short, is not just what went wrong, but more importantly whether and how one could have prevented it and how one reacts when things go wrong. It is a sum of prevention, responsibility and perception.
Characteristics of Culpability
Pre-crisis:
Culpability often builds up even before something goes wrong. In doing so, you can ask yourself a number of things:
Have signals been ignored, by warnings, reports or complaints being ignored or downplayed? Has risky behavior been noticed as a direct consequence? This may include intentional risky policies or actions. For example, ignoring warnings about a defective product or not following safety standards or protocols. Did this manifest itself in a lack of prevention? That in itself is negligence or deliberate indifference and is condoned by a culture of looking away. The result is that problems remain dormant and can suddenly become superlative.
And that reinforces culpability when demonstrated. Are there rumors? That reinforces culpability faster.
So often the situation involves previous warnings that were ignored. Many times these warnings come bottom-up. But they stick halfway up the hierarchy. An example is the O-rings-problem in the Challenger disaster. These were known risks that were not adequately addressed.
Another factor is lack of transparency in communication resulting in inconsistent policies or actions. Conflicts of interest can also be a cause of inconsistencies.
In addition, are there journalists already asking questions about risks (after a tip from a whistleblower), and complaints from citizens or customers that are not addressed by the organization? For example, due to the malfunctioning of the complaints service.
During a crisis:
Do the media experience the organization’s response to the crisis as inadequate or even misleading ? Then reproaches occur. Consider denying the seriousness of the situation, communicating incorrectly, or denying responsibility and accountability.
Is there a too slow or poor response? Are people not acting quickly enough according to the needs of the situation? Or is there unclear, incorrect or contradictory communication? This includes lying, trivializing and withholding information. Or is there the deliberate blocking of a legitimate communication by a spokesperson, when that communication was necessary for society? These are forms of damaging decisions. These are choices made that make the situation worse. A very specific damaging decision is not deciding. Because not deciding is also a decision, often the most wrong decision one can make.
Has there been communication in an indifferent tone? This is often pernicious because such responses will come across as cold, defensive or arrogant. Showing empathy is important! Did people make statements like “No one could have foreseen this” when there is evidence to the contrary? Denying responsibility is sensitive in society.
Are there conflicting statements and inconsistencies about liabilities in the story of the crisis? In line with this, shifting blame to others, and politicians or administrators blaming each other is pernicious. Is there unprepared communication?
Objective recognition of culpability
Culpability can be recognized by the following indicators:
- Are there causal links? Are there alternative options? Belgian law states liability if there is an event and a consequence and a causal link between the two. Therefore, if there is a clear link between acts/ omissions and foreseeable consequences, you are always at risk of culpability. The moment causal links are identified before the crisis takes place, it is sometimes still possible to influence the situation. One does this by looking at the alternative options and seeing which are the better choices.
- Is there a norm violation? This occurs when one deviates from standards that society or authorities expect the organization to adhere to. Violation produces a negative mood on social media or in society about the organization.
- How much media coverage is there? A key indicator is when journalists begin to ask critical questions about the organization’s role in the crisis. This is connected to mediagenicness, which is then tested. Journalists engage in media framing where they use words such as “blame,” “mismanagement,” “negligence,” “scandal.” Public outrage on social media grows, which can create polarization. In doing so, they use complaints and testimonies: Stories from victims or those involved. Leaked internal emails or documents are thereby highly desirable information that demonstrates what the organization knew in advance. The media often raises the question of the organization’s liability faster than justice can answer it. And that sets the perception of society. That in itself is not necessarily objective, but it can be objectively recognized.
- Does the media compare the organization to competitors? If other organizations performed (established) better in a similar situation, the culpability increases.
- Is there high political or legal pressure? Some objective signals that indicate that public perception is effectively moving toward high culpability are high political or legal pressure (Which often manifests itself in questions in the House of Representatives, indictments, investigations…) and public anger (which expresses itself on social media with memes and texts of outrage).
R = Relevance
Definition for relevance:
Relevance is the degree to which an event or issue directly affects interests, values, integrity or daily reality of stakeholders, such as the general public, media, policy and decision makers.
Explanation:
It is a parameter for the urgency that the stakeholders feel in dealing with the issue, incident or crisis. The more relevant the issue is, the more attention and reactions it receives.
It is mainly about the felt, perceived importance of the crisis, to the people talking and deciding about it.
You can recognize relevance by these questions:
The main question might be “Does it concern an issue that affects people personally (health, safety, purchasing power and finances, rights) in everyday life?” This can manifest itself in several ways. Below I provide a non-exhaustive list of more in-depth questions you can think of when trying to assess the relevance of a crisis.
- Has the topic already created existing social tension? Is the target audience already engaged? What stakeholder groups (customers, employees, local residents) can you identify? Is it a crisis occurring in the stakeholders’ immediate neighborhood? If so, it is not “NIMBY” (Not in my back yard). Does it touch on issues that are already in the spotlight (e.g., climate, security, inequality in a variety of areas)?
- Does it touch deeply held cultural values or beliefs of each of the stakeholder groups? Does the crisis evoke strong unpleasant emotions, such as fear, anger, hatred or insecurity? E.g., because of injustice, outrage or compassion? A crisis involving victims, especially children, or a vulnerable group; or a clearly wrongful act, touches more on values and beliefs.
- Is the impact limited to a niche of society or widely felt generally? Could the crisis spread rapidly and have greater consequences than first thought? Does the event affect a (very) large number of people? The scale and severity of the impact, which can be determined in advance, are crucial indicators here. Has the issue spread widely on social media with recognizable hashtags? Or is this likely?
- Can people easily identify with victims/ persons involved? Are interest groups, action groups or politicians actively following the crisis? Is the issue easily identifiable, i.e. will people understand in one sentence why it concerns them? Will people start petitions or actions? Is it something that even people outside the immediate circle of those affected will talk about as if it affects them?
- Does the issue fit into existing, well known storylines? Does the issue symbolize a larger problem? Are there ongoing discussions, opinions or research on a related topic? Does the issue interfere with political agendas?
- Does the issue directly affect the daily lives of stakeholders, both people and organizations? Does the issue affect an organization, brand or person of social importance? Does the victim have a major impact as a person or organization? Or is the issue an incident at an unknown small organization? Could the issue hurt the economy at large?
- Does the crisis connect to current social issues or debates? For example, an incident around environmental pollution will be more relevant at a time when sustainability is a dominant issue. Does it coincide with other news or a commemorative moment of national importance, or of interest to one or more of the groups involved? Lighting a cigarette at the eternal flame is more relevant on the day of war commemoration.
- A crisis or issue becomes more relevant when journalists can link the event to (similar or different) events from other files (“another example of…”). Also when there is a broadened impact: more regions, sectors, prominent people or groups are affected as more details become known. (E.g. by a whistleblower).
- Are there political or legal actions being taken? These make an issue/ incident/crisis particularly socially relevant. We think of questions in the House of Representatives, lawsuits, parliamentary commissions of inquiry…. Do political parties include it in campaigns?
M = (Social) Mediagenicity
Definition Mediagenicity:
Mediagenicity is the degree to which the issue, incident or crisis has intrinsic characteristics that make its story suitable for rapid dissemination through traditional and social media, emotional responses and has the capacity to generate interaction among and reactions from the public.
Explanation:
For social media genius, it mainly has the following characteristics:
- Visual and emotional “shareability”
- Short, powerful narratives or memes and “more of the same
- Feasibility of quick reactions
So it is not only “attractive to journalists,” but also perfectly suited to the algorithms and language of the Internet.
The third power (³) in the formula suggests that a little mediagenic quickly becomes very mediagenic.
Mediagenicity is the “clickability” and “shareability” of a story, resulting in a snowball effect of attention and engagement, along because of today’s digital age.
It is the result of a combination of factors that make the issue, incident or crisis appealing. It can become apparent either prior to a crisis or only during one.
Characteristics of high Social Mediagenicity:
Visual power:
- Can strong images, videos be created that summarize the essence of the crisis? Are livestreams, drone footage, iconic photos available?
- Are the social contrasts between the adversaries in the crisis clear? (Are they big versus small or rich versus poor or are they about promises versus reality?)
- Are there clear emotionally charged visual elements that make people wince or create pity? Do you sense anger, sadness, surprise, hope?
Story structure:
- Also in the story of the crisis, is there a clear contrast between the “good guys” and the “bad guys”? Between the “perpetrator” and the “victim”?
- Does the crisis have an opportunity to create plot twists and revelations?
- Are there recognizable archetypes in the story (E.g., is there a David versus Goliath comparison possible, is there an abuse of power or hypocrisy?)
- Is there a recognizable face or person as a figurehead of the crisis?
Divisibility:
- Is the essence of the crisis summarizable in one sentence, slogan or quote, or even one hashtag?
- Does the topic lend itself to memes, GIFs, reaction videos? Are there unexpected or even absurd elements?
- Is the story behind the crisis polarizing enough to provoke discussion?
Behavior of and in the media
- Do images dominate the story, or does much attention go to numbers or facts?
- Hashtags and videos tend to spread fastest.
- Are captions and gifs shared virally ?
- Are influencers doing their version of the story?
- Do media compilations like wrap-ups emerge? (“What happened here?” brought to you in 30 seconds).
Recognition prior to crisis:
- Was the topic in negative attention before?
- Does this story represent something bigger? Is it a symptom of something more important? Is it accompanied by protests, climate action, disasters…?
- Who is “in the picture”? Are famous people or VIPs involved?
- Can strong images or videos be made? These include special locations, notable characters or situations that are easy to portray.
- Are they stories involving an inhumane situation, where people are suffering or being wronged? Are there children victims?
- Is the story bite-sized and easy to convey to others? Can the gist be put into a single title? Can influencers use it smoothly?
- Does the crisis touch on societal fears or universal values?
Recognition during crisis:
- Is there a steep increase in shares, comments…?
- Is the story being shared across multiple platforms (From Youtube to Signal,…). Are people creating their own version of the story? Is there increase in engagement to share?
- Are reactions becoming more and more personal and intense?
- Is the crisis a trending topic on social media? And on search engines?
- Is the crisis present on traditional media (news channels, newspapers, radio)? Do discussions and analyses about it appear? Is the latest state of affairs constantly updated?
- Do eyewitnesses immediately disseminate what they see and hear on social media?
- Is the crisis easily translated into a compelling story? E.g., with shocking images.
- Do hashtags arise spontaneously and are adopted en masse?
- Are parodies being created about the crisis?
Conclusion
With these three building blocks, the Law of Pleuris has become a complete, strategic, dynamic ad hoc risk analysis model.
The bottom line is that Mediagenicity is a strong scaling factor in the Law of Pleuris. Blameworthiness and relevance provide the “fuel,” but mediagenicity ensures that the crisis becomes large and visible on the media (hence the third power in the formula). As a result, the ‘pleuris’ ‘blows up’.
And if there is ever a parliamentary inquiry, you can just calmly point to the decision based on the risk analysis and say:
“Well, it was in the formula.”
(The line “Well, it was in the formula” is a quote from Herman Melville’s short story “Bartleby, the Scrivener.”)